Madras High Court
"Sellur" K.Raju vs Public Prosecutor on 15 November, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3366 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3366 of 2024 &
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.2670 & 2671 of 2024
"Sellur" K.Raju
S/o.Kamatchi Thevar,
Member of Legislative Assembly,
Madurai West Constituency cum
District Secretary-Madurai Town District,
O/o.All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam,
Panagal Road, Madurai - 625 020. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Public Prosecutor,
(Representing on behalf of the
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu),
District Court Buildings,
Madurai. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call
for the records relating to the C.C.No.6 of 2023 on the file of the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
For Mr.Inbadurai. I.S.
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3366 of 2024
ORDER
The respondent/Public Prosecutor has filed a complaint against the
petitioner under Section 199(2) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. The complaint pertains to an
incident on 29.05.2023, during a demonstration organized by the All India
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) near the Dinamani Theatre Junction
in Madurai City. It is alleged that the petitioner, a sitting Member of the
Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Madurai West, made a speech that defamed
the Chief Minister with the intent to harm the public’s goodwill and opinion,
deliberately attempting to tarnish the Chief Minister's image before the voters
and the public in the State of Tamil Nadu. The statement made by the
petitioner is as follows:-
"jkpHfj;jpy; bjhlUk; CHy; KiwnfLfs;.
fs;sr;rhuhak; kw;Wk; nghyp kJghd ,wg;g[. bfhiy.
bfhs;is. fw;gHpg;g[. nghijg; bghUl;fs; gHf;fk;
cs;spl;l rl;l xG';F rPun
; fLfis fl;Lg;gLj;j jtwpa
tpoah !;lhypd; muirf; fz;oj;Jk;. ,tw;WfF
KGg;bghWg;ngW;W epu;thfj; jpwikaw;w Kjyikr;ru;
K/f/!;lhypd; cldoahf gjtp tpyf typa[Wj;jp
,d;iwf;F ,e;j khbgUk; fz;ld Mu;gg
; hl;lk;
,d;idf;F khefu; khtl;lk; rhu;ghf rpwg;ghf Vw;ghL
bra;ag;gl;L elj;jg;gLfpwJ////
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"/////bgha;ahd thf;FWjpfis Cu; CUf;Fg;
ngha; !;lhypd; ngrp. ghj;jP';fd;dh Ml;rpapy;. eh';f
ghyhWk;. njdhWk;; CWk; XLk;. kpd;rhuf; fl;lzj;ij
cau;j;jkhl;nlhk;/ khjk; khjk; kpd; fl;lzk;
fzf;bfLf;fg;gLk;/ ePl; nju;t[ cldoahf uj;J
bra;ag;gLk;. midj;J FLk;g ml;iljhuu;fSf;Fk; 2
nfhona 10 yl;rk; ngu;fSf;Fk; khjk; khjk; Mapuk;
U:gha; bfhLf;fg;gLk;. Mapuk; U:gha; tH';fpa Kjpnahu;
bgd;c&d; 1500 U:ghahf tH';Fnthk;/ khztu;fSila
fy;tpf; fl;lzj;ij cldoahf ,uj;J gz;Qqnthk;.
,g;go epiwntw;w Koahj rhjidfis vy;yhk;.
epiwntw;w Koahj jpl;l';fis vy;yhk; brhy;yp
kf;fis Vkhw;wp. Mir tiy tpupj;J. ,d;idf;F
Vkhspfshf;fp. kf;fs; ,d;idf;F Jd;gKk;. JauKk;
gl;Lf; bfhz;oUf;fpnwhk;////"
The complaint made by the respondent/Public Prosecutor was taken on file as
C.C.No.6 of 2023 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Madurai. To quash the said C.C.No.6 of 2023, the petitioner has approached
this Court by way of this Revision.
2. Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner, as a representative of the people and a member
of the opposition party, is entitled to offer fair criticism of the Government.
This criticism, he asserts, is not defamatory towards the State. Even
assuming, without admitting, that the statements made by the petitioner
could be construed as defamatory, they represent a candid criticism of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ruling party, and no defamatory words were specifically directed at the State.
The prosecution initiated against the petitioner appears to be driven by
political vendetta due to his active role in the opposition and his vocal
criticism of the ruling party.
3. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned prosecution
constitutes an assault on the democratic right of the opposition to freely
criticize the Government. In a democracy, opposition parties have the
responsibility to highlight and criticize the shortcomings of those in power.
The petitioner, in fulfilling this democratic duty, did not intend to incite hatred
or engage in hate speech, but simply voiced concerns about the
Government’s actions. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relies
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Misha vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh & Another [CDJ 2018 SC 391], and hence, the learned
counsel prays to set aside the C.C.No.6 of 2023, on the file of the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
4. Per contra, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner
intentionally made offensive remarks about the Chief Minister and his
Government, showing a criminal intent to damage the Chief Minister's
reputation. He would further submit that the petitioner aimed to harm the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
image of the Chief Minister in front of the voters and the public in Tamil
Nadu. The learned Government Pleader also points out that the required
approval to prosecute the petitioner was obtained through G.O.Ms.No.721
from the Public (L&O-H) Department, dated 21.11.2023. After the
Government Order was issued, a complaint was filed against the petitioner,
and the case is now under trial. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader
(Criminal Side) prays for the dismissal of this Criminal Original Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
6. Unfortunately, in today’s political environment, it is common for
political parties to criticize and blame each other, and the petitioner is no
exception. While it is true that political discourse often involves criticism
between opposing parties, it is essential to remember that such criticisms
must always stay within the bounds of the law and must not cross into
defamatory or malicious speech. In the present case, the petitioner, as a
member of the opposition party, has expressed criticism of the Government
and the ruling party. However, the language used in the statements does not
appear to be discriminatory or defamatory in a legal sense. The remarks,
though critical, reflect the usual way in which political speech is delivered in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
democracy, where opposing parties often voice their disagreements with the
Government's policies or actions. However, it is equally important to note that
politicians, as public figures and representatives of the people, carry a
responsibility to uphold a certain standard of conduct. Politicians should serve
as role models for the public, especially for the younger generation. When
they engage in divisive, inflammatory, or unprofessional behavior, it sets a
poor example for those who look up to them. In this regard, while the
petitioner’s remarks may have been made in the heat of political rivalry, they
do not, upon review, contain any words or sentiments that could reasonably
be construed as defamatory or intended to harm the reputation of the Chief
Minister or the Government in a malicious manner.
7. In light of the above, the case in C.C.No.6 of 2023 on the file of the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, is quashed, and the
criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
15.11.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
rns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Madurai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
(Representing on behalf of the
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu),
District Court Buildings,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VELMURUGAN, J
rns
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3366 of 2024 &
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.2670 & 2671 of 2024
15.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
